Although we, in the UK, have not had the pleasure of seeing this reunion movie it seems as if it is one NOT to miss. However, the ending seems to have left an opening for a second movie or EVEN a mini series!!! Now that would be good! Especially now that are having the chance to relive the whole series thanks to the new digital channel ITV3. It is also good to see that the majority of the cast from the series agreed to return for this movie, but what happened to Blair Underwood and Jimmy Smits? Would they and the others return for a second movie or a mini series? I do hope so as when L. A. Law ended it left a big hole in believable legal dramas that also contained very believable humorous moments as well. Even when new characters were brought in the show maintained a high level of writing and acting that would have sustained the show even though the US networks cancelled the show.
9 Reviews
Not bad at all
ruthemily200420 August 2005
This was not a bad reunion movie at all!! All the story lines came to a conclusion, and it still had the same drama/humor mix. The weirdest part was seeing Dann Florek as Dave Meyer again. He is great at playing him (I forgot what annoying ass Dave really was!!)but Mr. Florek is now Capt.Donald Cragen (Law and Order SVU) to me. The fact that Jimmy Smits wasn't even in it is not a big problem at all. The important characters were there, and that's what counts. The only reason I even bought this DVD is because I haven't been able to find the series on DVD yet. If you loved LA Law in the 80's and early 90's as much as I did, you will really like this movie.
They Ruined the Characters, But it wasn't Horrible
masonuc13 May 2002
Arnie is suddenly a complete loser and is getting manipulated by his ex-wife? Ann is no longer a tough-as-nails skeptic, she's been defrauded by a cultish guru? Kuzak has given up the law to run a bar? And he's still going over Douglas's head to Leland, even though Leland is retired and working in a greenhouse. Pretty unrealistic, and an assassination of the original characters. And the plot behind the reunion special was as cookie-cutter as you can get. It wasn't utterly horrible, but it wasn't the L.A. Law of old.
A Poor Return of the great law show. Not worth the TV watching Time.
emailbarry13 May 2002
This reunion took some of the most loved characters and took them ten steps backwards. Some characters are back with vengeance in the heart and others are having returned with nothing to do. This movie might have done better by extending to at least a three hour format to give the story line some time to complete. Instead we get this mess of changed characters that no one really gets a chance go care about. Even the background ambience is gone. From the ringing phones and office chatter that once filled the law firm, the sound environment now represents either a very poor law firm with no business or that of a funeral parlor. This movie should never have been made with such a weak and quickly thrown together script. Unfortunately I would have to say this garbage is a D.O.A. movie that should not be shown again....
L.A.Law: Return to 2 hours of bad writing and actors who have not aged well
Joanie4413 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Disappointing, from someone who was not expecting much.
Now Harry Hamlin, playing Michael Kusak, looked good and alive and rested, but that was about it...most everyone else looked and sounded tired and bored with the poorly written script. While we all expected that the Romance between *Mickey* and *Grace* (Susan Dey) would be part of this years later story, Gracie showed no spark, looked and acted particularly tired and drawn...the interaction between them was dull...who would believe a rebud of a romance there? And the outcome of the trial in the story?? Oh, puhleeeze...like *that* would ever happen...a total collapse of the prosecution after a few sentences by a totally inconsistent witness? While we knew what would happen in this never ending case...we expected more guts and surprises all around, perhaps substance in filling in the blanks of all the unfinished story lines of years ago...but we really got drivel.
Well, I guess there were more story lines involving all the other old cast members that they could draw in...stupid and boring story lines drawing together people who have not really aged well and just did not have the story or lines to let them exhibit the spark of life that made them appealing in the TV series not that many years ago. Poor Roxanne just looks fat and too old to be the mother of the young girl who appears to be just learning to color with crayons (did not Tommy Mulaney impregnate her at least *10* years ago? Not that *he* shows up in this film to give us a clue of that relationship...instead it is more of whining sleazy Dave, unappetizing and unsympathetic even in his so-called death throes).
Benny is just bigger, Leland older, Brackman acts like an undertaker, Markowitz and Kelsey older, more drawn, flat and ditzy with a few stick in there lines with little character consistency. I could list (the mousy Abby was not bad in *her* stupid story line, but hardly riveting) the rest, but why? It was a BAD TV movie, embarrassing even as a years later story...most of the acting was flat and one dimensional and the story line had even my kids complaining about the writing. Most of the lines seemed written just to give another character something to say...what a bad movie. The few memorable characters who did *not* appear (notably Jimmy Smits and John Spencer) came off the best in this one.
Now Harry Hamlin, playing Michael Kusak, looked good and alive and rested, but that was about it...most everyone else looked and sounded tired and bored with the poorly written script. While we all expected that the Romance between *Mickey* and *Grace* (Susan Dey) would be part of this years later story, Gracie showed no spark, looked and acted particularly tired and drawn...the interaction between them was dull...who would believe a rebud of a romance there? And the outcome of the trial in the story?? Oh, puhleeeze...like *that* would ever happen...a total collapse of the prosecution after a few sentences by a totally inconsistent witness? While we knew what would happen in this never ending case...we expected more guts and surprises all around, perhaps substance in filling in the blanks of all the unfinished story lines of years ago...but we really got drivel.
Well, I guess there were more story lines involving all the other old cast members that they could draw in...stupid and boring story lines drawing together people who have not really aged well and just did not have the story or lines to let them exhibit the spark of life that made them appealing in the TV series not that many years ago. Poor Roxanne just looks fat and too old to be the mother of the young girl who appears to be just learning to color with crayons (did not Tommy Mulaney impregnate her at least *10* years ago? Not that *he* shows up in this film to give us a clue of that relationship...instead it is more of whining sleazy Dave, unappetizing and unsympathetic even in his so-called death throes).
Benny is just bigger, Leland older, Brackman acts like an undertaker, Markowitz and Kelsey older, more drawn, flat and ditzy with a few stick in there lines with little character consistency. I could list (the mousy Abby was not bad in *her* stupid story line, but hardly riveting) the rest, but why? It was a BAD TV movie, embarrassing even as a years later story...most of the acting was flat and one dimensional and the story line had even my kids complaining about the writing. Most of the lines seemed written just to give another character something to say...what a bad movie. The few memorable characters who did *not* appear (notably Jimmy Smits and John Spencer) came off the best in this one.
A blah reunion with a laughable main plot
LittleStorpingInTheSwuff25 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Even with a lot of makeup the characters/actors have not aged well, especially Susan Ruttan. But, that's to be expected after being off the air for 8 years, nor did it detract from the sub plots. The main plot, however, is totally laughable. Albert Hutchinson was found guilty of murder at his trial, and after ten or so years of many appeals is now facing execution in a matter of two weeks. So along comes Kuzak, who is no longer practicing law. And in just two weeks he does what he failed to do at the original trial and all of the appeals: he finds a witness who proves Hutchinson innocent, plus proves that the former D.A. (now a U.S. congressman) at the time of the original trial was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. Seriously? This is the best that the writers could do for a reunion? It was nothing more than a repeat of the Earl Williams case in season 4.
I give this an 8. Now, my review
scottmyers-5756912 June 2022
OK. So the plot wasn't great, but then again what did you expect out of this TV Reunion movie? More magical moments this series had in the late 80s/early 90s? Not really. Having written that, I found this reunion still enjoyable....especially when Abby Perkins showed up! BTW, I have fallen in love with Michele Greene, but please DON'T TELL ANYONE! Just watch the movie...and please enjoy it for what's it worth.
Suprisingly good "reunion movie"
isenberg-e12 May 2002
I don't expect a lot out of TV reunion movies. After all, their purpose is simply to get as many original cast members as possible together, and play upon the nostalgia of those who remember the original series fondly. They don't start with a good script; that is the last thing that is done.
However, in this case, the story was actually worth watching even if you had never seen the original series. The subplots also held my interest. My only complaint was the unsatisfactory ending. One subplot item ended in a way that left one feeling dislike for someone in the original series (if only as a recurring character), for no reason that I could tell. The actual ending seemed to me to be abrupt, almost as if at least one more scene had been written and filmed but then cut for time. Still it was worth the two hours.
However, in this case, the story was actually worth watching even if you had never seen the original series. The subplots also held my interest. My only complaint was the unsatisfactory ending. One subplot item ended in a way that left one feeling dislike for someone in the original series (if only as a recurring character), for no reason that I could tell. The actual ending seemed to me to be abrupt, almost as if at least one more scene had been written and filmed but then cut for time. Still it was worth the two hours.
L.A. Law is a television hee-haw.
vegasalec14 February 2005
All rise, the honorable Reviewer Alec Pinkston is about to give his ruling: "What have all your favorite prosecutors been up to in the last eight years?" This is a question that you may have been asking yourself back in 2002. Well, in the matter of People vs. Sappy Television Reunion Shows, the jury finds the LA Law reunion show to be guilty in the first degree of quality programming. So if you have any objection to this reunion you are hereby over-ruled. From Harry Hamlin to that girl from the Patridge family, even the retarded guy made the trip. There's no much more you could ask for from Stephen Bochoco and the gang. Case dismissed.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
